Forums > Social Discussion > Humiliated Saddam
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
comfortably numb
2,676 posts
Location: The countryside, Australia
comfortably numb
2,676 posts
Location: The countryside, Australia
Posted:
https://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=24237
It was strange actually. When I first saw it I thought...'the poor man'...but then I thought...
'hold on a minute...look at all of the horrible things he's done'
Do you agree with those defending such an inhumane, cruel man?
Or do you think he deserved it?
Do you think the paper should apologise?
Should anyone be punished? The paper, the photographer?
Discuss.
https://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=24237
It was strange actually. When I first saw it I thought...'the poor man'...but then I thought...
'hold on a minute...look at all of the horrible things he's done'
Do you agree with those defending such an inhumane, cruel man?
Or do you think he deserved it?
Do you think the paper should apologise?
Should anyone be punished? The paper, the photographer?
Discuss.
.All things are beautiful if we take the time to look.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'"Saddam Hussein and his regime were bloody and practiced mass killing against the people, therefore, whatever happens to Saddam, whether he is photographed naked or washing his clothes, it means nothing to me. That's the least he deserves," said Hawre Saliee, a 38-year-old Kurd.'
what he said.
'"Saddam Hussein and his regime were bloody and practiced mass killing against the people, therefore, whatever happens to Saddam, whether he is photographed naked or washing his clothes, it means nothing to me. That's the least he deserves," said Hawre Saliee, a 38-year-old Kurd.'
what he said.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think the fact that there are people in Guantanamo who have been there for over 4 yrs WITHOUT TRIAL OR EVEN ACCUSATION is slightly more serious than Saddam getting out of the shower...
I think the fact that there are people in Guantanamo who have been there for over 4 yrs WITHOUT TRIAL OR EVEN ACCUSATION is slightly more serious than Saddam getting out of the shower...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Posted:
I think you have to treat everyone in the same way. Human rights should apply to everyone no matter who they are. If you do not apply the rights to everyone you are going down the same route Saddam Hussein himself did.
I think you have to treat everyone in the same way. Human rights should apply to everyone no matter who they are. If you do not apply the rights to everyone you are going down the same route Saddam Hussein himself did.
Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!
BRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
agreed with Skully on this one.
i have the same discusion on other subjects.
and plus there are things i don't wish to see
agreed with Skully on this one.
i have the same discusion on other subjects.
and plus there are things i don't wish to see
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
BRONZE Member
Snoochie-boochie-noochies!
663 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Snoochie-boochie-noochies!
663 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
but surely when he took away the rights of the peope he killed, he forfeited those same rights?
but surely when he took away the rights of the peope he killed, he forfeited those same rights?
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
yes, but if we sink to his level of breaking those rights, what does that say about us?
yes, but if we sink to his level of breaking those rights, what does that say about us?
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Bastardised quote:
When we take away the rights of people who have killed, we forfeit those same rights?
Bastardised quote:
When we take away the rights of people who have killed, we forfeit those same rights?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
To humiliate and parade anyone in that way is quite simply deplorable. There's enough suffering in the world already.
To humiliate and parade anyone in that way is quite simply deplorable. There's enough suffering in the world already.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'I think you have to treat everyone in the same way. Human rights should apply to everyone no matter who they are. If you do not apply the rights to everyone you are going down the same route Saddam Hussein himself did.'
. . . but you surely agree that people can waive these rights? Rights are a certain ground for having a claim against someone: so if I have a right to life, I can make a claim on you not to kill me. But rights are also universalisable: if I have a certain right, then you also have it. If I deny that you have this right, then - ipso facto - I deny that I have this right, and hence I waive it. In Saddam's case, gassing the Kurds is equivalent to him waiving his claim not to be treated in the same way.
This means that he has no right not to be treated likewise. Whether that means that we *should* e.g. photograph him in his undies is another matter; I grant that there's a case for saying 'let's not sink to his level'. But it isn't a matter of violating his rights: he's waived those already.
'I think you have to treat everyone in the same way. Human rights should apply to everyone no matter who they are. If you do not apply the rights to everyone you are going down the same route Saddam Hussein himself did.'
. . . but you surely agree that people can waive these rights? Rights are a certain ground for having a claim against someone: so if I have a right to life, I can make a claim on you not to kill me. But rights are also universalisable: if I have a certain right, then you also have it. If I deny that you have this right, then - ipso facto - I deny that I have this right, and hence I waive it. In Saddam's case, gassing the Kurds is equivalent to him waiving his claim not to be treated in the same way.
This means that he has no right not to be treated likewise. Whether that means that we *should* e.g. photograph him in his undies is another matter; I grant that there's a case for saying 'let's not sink to his level'. But it isn't a matter of violating his rights: he's waived those already.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
human rights are just that, rights. they can't be taken away, waived, ignored. The acceptance and use, for want of a better word, of these rights is what makes us human. So, by violating saddam's rights, we're in the wrong just as much as he is.
By extrapolating some of the arguments here, it seems that it would then be ok to humiliate and do whatever, even gas, the people that treat saddam that way.
So, you think its ok to treat another human being however we want because they killed some people. I can see the logic in that, but it follows that whoever treats that human being badly can then be treated badly, because they didnt follow human rights. and whoever treats those other people bad etc etc etc.
Where does it end?
Its up to good people to end it, thats where.
Ok. So, saddam kills people. this is wrong.
We treat him like crap. this too, is wrong.
remember parents saying two wrongs dont make a right? I think this applies here.
human rights are just that, rights. they can't be taken away, waived, ignored. The acceptance and use, for want of a better word, of these rights is what makes us human. So, by violating saddam's rights, we're in the wrong just as much as he is.
By extrapolating some of the arguments here, it seems that it would then be ok to humiliate and do whatever, even gas, the people that treat saddam that way.
Written by:
In Saddam's case, gassing the Kurds is equivalent to him waiving his claim not to be treated in the same way.
So, you think its ok to treat another human being however we want because they killed some people. I can see the logic in that, but it follows that whoever treats that human being badly can then be treated badly, because they didnt follow human rights. and whoever treats those other people bad etc etc etc.
Where does it end?
Its up to good people to end it, thats where.
Ok. So, saddam kills people. this is wrong.
We treat him like crap. this too, is wrong.
remember parents saying two wrongs dont make a right? I think this applies here.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
GOLD Member
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Posted:
In answer to your first statement of this post I say no.
Human Rights apply to EVERYONE. They are not called Earned Rights. They are a blanket set of rules that have been agree and signed up to. They state that ANY human being has a right to a basic standard of treatment by others. There is no opt out clause. There is no condition at the bottom that says "these terms only apply if you feel the person deserves to be treated with dignity"
How can we try this man for crimes against Human Rights if we ourselves do not adhere to those basic rights? Whats to stop him charging us with the same crime if we miss treat him?
Maybe you would like to read this.
Written by: quiet
. . . but you surely agree that people can waive these rights? Rights are a certain ground for having a claim against someone: so if I have a right to life, I can make a claim on you not to kill me. But rights are also universalisable: if I have a certain right, then you also have it. If I deny that you have this right, then - ipso facto - I deny that I have this right, and hence I waive it. In Saddam's case, gassing the Kurds is equivalent to him waiving his claim not to be treated in the same way.
This means that he has no right not to be treated likewise. Whether that means that we *should* e.g. photograph him in his undies is another matter; I grant that there's a case for saying 'let's not sink to his level'. But it isn't a matter of violating his rights: he's waived those already.
In answer to your first statement of this post I say no.
Human Rights apply to EVERYONE. They are not called Earned Rights. They are a blanket set of rules that have been agree and signed up to. They state that ANY human being has a right to a basic standard of treatment by others. There is no opt out clause. There is no condition at the bottom that says "these terms only apply if you feel the person deserves to be treated with dignity"
How can we try this man for crimes against Human Rights if we ourselves do not adhere to those basic rights? Whats to stop him charging us with the same crime if we miss treat him?
Maybe you would like to read this.
Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!
SILVER Member
comfortably numb
2,676 posts
Location: The countryside, Australia
comfortably numb
2,676 posts
Location: The countryside, Australia
Posted:
This also brings up the issues with lawyers, advocates and psychologists who work with these people.
Imagine working with say...a middled aged man who has molested 10 boys and girls. As much as you wouldn't want to work with them, someone has to. You have to understand that everyone has rights no matter who they are or what they've done.
Imagine the lawyers having to defend him?
You could hate him for what he's done, wish ill upon him, refuse to work with him but you must remember that everyone has rights.
This also brings up the issues with lawyers, advocates and psychologists who work with these people.
Imagine working with say...a middled aged man who has molested 10 boys and girls. As much as you wouldn't want to work with them, someone has to. You have to understand that everyone has rights no matter who they are or what they've done.
Imagine the lawyers having to defend him?
You could hate him for what he's done, wish ill upon him, refuse to work with him but you must remember that everyone has rights.
.All things are beautiful if we take the time to look.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
But then in that case it's always "innocent until proven guilty" so there is a posibility (however small) that the accused Paedophile is innocent.
I think most people would agree that Saddam is *definately* guilty.
(And no, I don't agree with the violation of his rights, see my post above)
But then in that case it's always "innocent until proven guilty" so there is a posibility (however small) that the accused Paedophile is innocent.
I think most people would agree that Saddam is *definately* guilty.
(And no, I don't agree with the violation of his rights, see my post above)
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Back onto the 'waiving rights' issue: what I *didn't* mean by this was 'you can waive someone else's rights'; what I *did* mean was 'you can waive your own rights'
If you're still sceptical, here's an example: I have a right not to be punched / hit / or otherwise physically assaulted. But if I attack someone else, are they doing something wrong if they hit back?
My analysis of such a case would be that, by attacking them, I've waived my right not to be hit in return.
Back onto the 'waiving rights' issue: what I *didn't* mean by this was 'you can waive someone else's rights'; what I *did* mean was 'you can waive your own rights'
If you're still sceptical, here's an example: I have a right not to be punched / hit / or otherwise physically assaulted. But if I attack someone else, are they doing something wrong if they hit back?
My analysis of such a case would be that, by attacking them, I've waived my right not to be hit in return.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Posted:
Ok lets take this in 2 parts
(1) I don't really see what you are trying to say here. I'll put what I think you are saying but please do clarify if I'm wrong.
Are you saying that Saddam Hussien has commited such atrocities he has waived his claim to Human Rights and therefore can be treated in anyway shape or form that we so choose? If that is what you are saying that doesn't automatically mean that we should treat him badly because we, having signed up to the treaty for Human Rights, would still on our own conscience not wish to treat him badly as we believe to do so would be wrong. If however we DO treat him badly and break the Treaty that would mean we had waivered our claim to Human Rights. Would that not mean he was was not guilty of breaking our Human rights because we had waivered our claim to it?
That would make the Human Rights treaty a nonsense.
(2)
This is about self defence and reasonable force. If the person you are attacking takes reasonable steps using reasonable force to stop you attacking him, he has done nothing wrong. That is the right of self defence. If however he were to pull out a gun and shoot you dead when all he really needed to do was push you away and run then it would be a different matter. He has a Human Right not to be attacked by you in the first place but you in turn still have a human right not to be killed. Its a matter of degrees in this example. You have not, by attacking someone, waivered your Human Rights.
Written by: quiet
(1) Back onto the 'waiving rights' issue: what I *didn't* mean by this was 'you can waive someone else's rights'; what I *did* mean was 'you can waive your own rights'
(2) If you're still sceptical, here's an example: I have a right not to be punched / hit / or otherwise physically assaulted. But if I attack someone else, are they doing something wrong if they hit back?
My analysis of such a case would be that, by attacking them, I've waived my right not to be hit in return.
Ok lets take this in 2 parts
(1) I don't really see what you are trying to say here. I'll put what I think you are saying but please do clarify if I'm wrong.
Are you saying that Saddam Hussien has commited such atrocities he has waived his claim to Human Rights and therefore can be treated in anyway shape or form that we so choose? If that is what you are saying that doesn't automatically mean that we should treat him badly because we, having signed up to the treaty for Human Rights, would still on our own conscience not wish to treat him badly as we believe to do so would be wrong. If however we DO treat him badly and break the Treaty that would mean we had waivered our claim to Human Rights. Would that not mean he was was not guilty of breaking our Human rights because we had waivered our claim to it?
That would make the Human Rights treaty a nonsense.
(2)
This is about self defence and reasonable force. If the person you are attacking takes reasonable steps using reasonable force to stop you attacking him, he has done nothing wrong. That is the right of self defence. If however he were to pull out a gun and shoot you dead when all he really needed to do was push you away and run then it would be a different matter. He has a Human Right not to be attacked by you in the first place but you in turn still have a human right not to be killed. Its a matter of degrees in this example. You have not, by attacking someone, waivered your Human Rights.
Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!
SILVER Member
member
151 posts
Location: London, United Kingdom
member
151 posts
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posted:
The American government doesn't believe in human rights, at least not where non-Americans are concerned. The American people re-elected the government. Does this mean that the American people have waved their own human rights?
The American government doesn't believe in human rights, at least not where non-Americans are concerned. The American people re-elected the government. Does this mean that the American people have waved their own human rights?
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
49% of us didn't.
Anyway, I believe that the measure of a country is not how it treats its allies, but how it treats its enemies. Bush claims to be such a Christian, then what ever happened to 'Love thine enemy' and 'Turn the other cheek?' Oh, right, like so many Americans, he endorses God's will only when it coincides with his own.
Yes, Saddam must face judgement and consequences. I'm not so naive as to say that he should be forgiven and let loose, but he is guilty of nothing until he has been found so by a court.
As a medical student, I was APPALLED when the photos of his physical examination were revealed in utter violation of the Hippocratic Oath. I am now appalled at this image of the man in his underwear. Even if found guilty, it's inappropriate and it accomplishes nothing to repair the damage he's done.
It DOES empower the insurgents, the terrorists, and everyone else who hates the USA.
Written by: Yell fire!
The American government doesn't believe in human rights, at least not where non-Americans are concerned. The American people re-elected the government. Does this mean that the American people have waved their own human rights?
49% of us didn't.
Anyway, I believe that the measure of a country is not how it treats its allies, but how it treats its enemies. Bush claims to be such a Christian, then what ever happened to 'Love thine enemy' and 'Turn the other cheek?' Oh, right, like so many Americans, he endorses God's will only when it coincides with his own.
Yes, Saddam must face judgement and consequences. I'm not so naive as to say that he should be forgiven and let loose, but he is guilty of nothing until he has been found so by a court.
As a medical student, I was APPALLED when the photos of his physical examination were revealed in utter violation of the Hippocratic Oath. I am now appalled at this image of the man in his underwear. Even if found guilty, it's inappropriate and it accomplishes nothing to repair the damage he's done.
It DOES empower the insurgents, the terrorists, and everyone else who hates the USA.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'(1) I don't really see what you are trying to say here. I'll put what I think you are saying but please do clarify if I'm wrong.
Are you saying that Saddam Hussien has commited such atrocities he has waived his claim to Human Rights and therefore can be treated in anyway shape or form that we so choose? If that is what you are saying that doesn't automatically mean that we should treat him badly because we, having signed up to the treaty for Human Rights, would still on our own conscience not wish to treat him badly as we believe to do so would be wrong. If however we DO treat him badly and break the Treaty that would mean we had waivered our claim to Human Rights. Would that not mean he was was not guilty of breaking our Human rights because we had waivered our claim to it?'
You've understood precisely what I was trying to say. No, it wouldn't mean he wasn't guilty of breaches of human rights, because, to put it bluntly, he started it. He first waived his claim by breaching the rights of others; if we treat him badly, he doesn't have the basis for a claim against us - that is, he's waived his right - so we don't breach a right when we treat him badly. Again, I don't think this means that we should treat him in this way; we've got our own standards of decency to uphold.
I think your analysis of 2 is broadly right, so I think I'm wrong about that one.
I *do* still think that rights can be waived in this sense, however. I'll try to make it more explicit. Rights ground certain claims: the claim is 'you shouldn't treat ANYONE like this.' But if you _do_ treat someone like that, then you can't consistently and sincerely make such a claim: something has gone wrong if you're saying 'one ought to do X', but failing to live up to that. It's like, I dunno, gassing the Kurds but saying at the same time 'you shouldn't gas anyone'. You've undermined that very claim by acting against it.
Lightning's point about the effect on insurgents/terrorists etc is spot-on, and well-taken. Like I said, I don't think we necessarily *should* treat him in this way.
'(1) I don't really see what you are trying to say here. I'll put what I think you are saying but please do clarify if I'm wrong.
Are you saying that Saddam Hussien has commited such atrocities he has waived his claim to Human Rights and therefore can be treated in anyway shape or form that we so choose? If that is what you are saying that doesn't automatically mean that we should treat him badly because we, having signed up to the treaty for Human Rights, would still on our own conscience not wish to treat him badly as we believe to do so would be wrong. If however we DO treat him badly and break the Treaty that would mean we had waivered our claim to Human Rights. Would that not mean he was was not guilty of breaking our Human rights because we had waivered our claim to it?'
You've understood precisely what I was trying to say. No, it wouldn't mean he wasn't guilty of breaches of human rights, because, to put it bluntly, he started it. He first waived his claim by breaching the rights of others; if we treat him badly, he doesn't have the basis for a claim against us - that is, he's waived his right - so we don't breach a right when we treat him badly. Again, I don't think this means that we should treat him in this way; we've got our own standards of decency to uphold.
I think your analysis of 2 is broadly right, so I think I'm wrong about that one.
I *do* still think that rights can be waived in this sense, however. I'll try to make it more explicit. Rights ground certain claims: the claim is 'you shouldn't treat ANYONE like this.' But if you _do_ treat someone like that, then you can't consistently and sincerely make such a claim: something has gone wrong if you're saying 'one ought to do X', but failing to live up to that. It's like, I dunno, gassing the Kurds but saying at the same time 'you shouldn't gas anyone'. You've undermined that very claim by acting against it.
Lightning's point about the effect on insurgents/terrorists etc is spot-on, and well-taken. Like I said, I don't think we necessarily *should* treat him in this way.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Posted:
Ok I'm going to say this once more then I'm giving up because you don't seem to be listening.
The Human Rights Treaty agrees that EVERYONE is entitled to a basic blanket treaty of Human Rights. The Human Rights are set out very clearly and I have given you a link to them in a previous post. These are not Rights you earn. They are a basic set of rules that have been agreed as a minimum standard of how one human/group of human beings should behave towards another human/group of human beings. Anyone breaking these rules can and should be brought forward to be tried and punished for their acts. The rules apply to EVERYONE .
As is written in the Treaty in Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
and Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed INNOCENT until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
We are signed up to this treaty and therefore must abide by it unless we wish to be charged with breaking someones human rights. That includes violent criminals, petty theives and even mass murdering dictators. There are no opt out clauses. There are no ifs buts and maybes. The rules apply to EVERYBODY .
Ok I'm going to say this once more then I'm giving up because you don't seem to be listening.
The Human Rights Treaty agrees that EVERYONE is entitled to a basic blanket treaty of Human Rights. The Human Rights are set out very clearly and I have given you a link to them in a previous post. These are not Rights you earn. They are a basic set of rules that have been agreed as a minimum standard of how one human/group of human beings should behave towards another human/group of human beings. Anyone breaking these rules can and should be brought forward to be tried and punished for their acts. The rules apply to EVERYONE .
As is written in the Treaty in Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
and Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed INNOCENT until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
We are signed up to this treaty and therefore must abide by it unless we wish to be charged with breaking someones human rights. That includes violent criminals, petty theives and even mass murdering dictators. There are no opt out clauses. There are no ifs buts and maybes. The rules apply to EVERYBODY .
Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Hang on a second: please do me the decency of reading this post carefully, because you've missed what I was saying above. I'll be brief.
1. I am not arguing about the content of the Human Rights Treaty. I agree fully that the HRT agrees that EVERYONE is entitled to these rights.
2. I am arguing about *moral* (as opposed to legal rights, or those specified by a treaty).
3. So I agree fully with you that 'We are signed up to this treaty and therefore must abide by it unless we wish to be charged with breaking someones human rights. . .' etc. I realise this, and there is no disagreement between us on this issue, damnit.
4. *However*, I dispute two things. Firstly, I'm not sure why we should think that the Treaty has got it entirely right (I'm not saying that it isn't mostly right; indeed, it might be entirely right; I'm just saying that it's not a necessary truth). Secondly, it's not clear to me that we are under a moral obligation to adhere to all of our legal obligations. Even if we are legally bound by the treaty, that is different from saying that we are morally bound by it.
5. Here's an example of waiving rights which you will not disagree with. We do not 'earn' the right to vote: EVERYONE acquires it at a certain age. However, prisoners can't vote. They waive their right to vote by committing a crime (and being caught, if you want to be pedantic). Again, and i'll put this in capitals so you don't miss it, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS RIGHT: I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT HAPPENS
6. So you're confusing legal and moral rights. I'm talking about the latter.
7. And please, please, don't accuse me of not listening. I make a point of making sure that I read peoples' posts carefully before replying. Why is it that you don't think I'm listening? Is it just because I haven't said 'I agree' to everything you're writing?
Hang on a second: please do me the decency of reading this post carefully, because you've missed what I was saying above. I'll be brief.
1. I am not arguing about the content of the Human Rights Treaty. I agree fully that the HRT agrees that EVERYONE is entitled to these rights.
2. I am arguing about *moral* (as opposed to legal rights, or those specified by a treaty).
3. So I agree fully with you that 'We are signed up to this treaty and therefore must abide by it unless we wish to be charged with breaking someones human rights. . .' etc. I realise this, and there is no disagreement between us on this issue, damnit.
4. *However*, I dispute two things. Firstly, I'm not sure why we should think that the Treaty has got it entirely right (I'm not saying that it isn't mostly right; indeed, it might be entirely right; I'm just saying that it's not a necessary truth). Secondly, it's not clear to me that we are under a moral obligation to adhere to all of our legal obligations. Even if we are legally bound by the treaty, that is different from saying that we are morally bound by it.
5. Here's an example of waiving rights which you will not disagree with. We do not 'earn' the right to vote: EVERYONE acquires it at a certain age. However, prisoners can't vote. They waive their right to vote by committing a crime (and being caught, if you want to be pedantic). Again, and i'll put this in capitals so you don't miss it, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS RIGHT: I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT HAPPENS
6. So you're confusing legal and moral rights. I'm talking about the latter.
7. And please, please, don't accuse me of not listening. I make a point of making sure that I read peoples' posts carefully before replying. Why is it that you don't think I'm listening? Is it just because I haven't said 'I agree' to everything you're writing?
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Good Post Lightning, but I would change "Oh, right, like so many Americans, he endorses God's will only when it coincides with his own" to:
"Oh, right, like so many other leaders, he endorses God's will only when it coincides with his own"
It is a common feature of ALL governments including the Aztecs and Ancient Egyptians to claim Divine backing on the issue of War.
While I do have issues with America (oh so many issues...) I think it should be clear that they aren't the only guilty parties in this case.
(Start with the fact that the average European creates about 450Kg of waste anually, while the average American creates 1500Kg per year... And let's not get started on Iraq again)
Good Post Lightning, but I would change "Oh, right, like so many Americans, he endorses God's will only when it coincides with his own" to:
"Oh, right, like so many other leaders, he endorses God's will only when it coincides with his own"
It is a common feature of ALL governments including the Aztecs and Ancient Egyptians to claim Divine backing on the issue of War.
While I do have issues with America (oh so many issues...) I think it should be clear that they aren't the only guilty parties in this case.
(Start with the fact that the average European creates about 450Kg of waste anually, while the average American creates 1500Kg per year... And let's not get started on Iraq again)
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
4,437 posts
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
4,437 posts
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
Posted:
I can understand what youa re saying but to be honest i dont give a sh*t, in the end if you are going to practise human rights laws and say hey dont do this to our prisoners and also the humiliating pictures soem of our troops have taken of iraquis you have to be prepared to dot he same yourself, its a bit stupid kicking up a fuss about humans being shown like that and then doing the same, agreed he did terrible things, but for us to do that we are sinking just as low and doing the same thing we have fought against the last few days and even goign back to geneva
I can understand what youa re saying but to be honest i dont give a sh*t, in the end if you are going to practise human rights laws and say hey dont do this to our prisoners and also the humiliating pictures soem of our troops have taken of iraquis you have to be prepared to dot he same yourself, its a bit stupid kicking up a fuss about humans being shown like that and then doing the same, agreed he did terrible things, but for us to do that we are sinking just as low and doing the same thing we have fought against the last few days and even goign back to geneva
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind
Give a man a fish and he'll eat 4 a day hit a man with a brick and you can have all his fish and his wife
"Will's to pretty for prison" - Simian
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind '
If you think that, you've missed the whole point of the Biblical saying. The idea isn't that retaliation is mandatory; it's that retaliation should be kept proportional. So if someone hits you, then you shouldn't do more than hit them back (shooting them, for instance, is right out). If the principle is adhered to, the violence won't escalate.
'An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind '
If you think that, you've missed the whole point of the Biblical saying. The idea isn't that retaliation is mandatory; it's that retaliation should be kept proportional. So if someone hits you, then you shouldn't do more than hit them back (shooting them, for instance, is right out). If the principle is adhered to, the violence won't escalate.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Sorry, have we gone down to the level of sniping each other's signatures now?
Sorry, have we gone down to the level of sniping each other's signatures now?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
*borrows Pele's typewriter*
It seems to me we are a little tied up in differing definitions here. I have a few questions for all:
What is your definition of a right?
What is your definition of a human right?
What is your definition of a law?
What is your definition of moral obligation?
I suspect in this debate the first two are the most important. As such I would ask one more question:
Is a right different from a human right?
I am not asking for dictionary definitions here, rather asing what you guys mean when you say these things. It can be as fuzzy around the edges as you like, (even included "errrm" and "Its that thing, y'know, when..."). My agenda, up front, is to come to some consensus. I believe that it can be assisted by understanding exactly where the other person is coming from, without judging.
Will post more later
*returns the typewriter*
*borrows Pele's typewriter*
It seems to me we are a little tied up in differing definitions here. I have a few questions for all:
What is your definition of a right?
What is your definition of a human right?
What is your definition of a law?
What is your definition of moral obligation?
I suspect in this debate the first two are the most important. As such I would ask one more question:
Is a right different from a human right?
I am not asking for dictionary definitions here, rather asing what you guys mean when you say these things. It can be as fuzzy around the edges as you like, (even included "errrm" and "Its that thing, y'know, when..."). My agenda, up front, is to come to some consensus. I believe that it can be assisted by understanding exactly where the other person is coming from, without judging.
Will post more later
*returns the typewriter*
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
SILVER Member
comfortably numb
2,676 posts
Location: The countryside, Australia
comfortably numb
2,676 posts
Location: The countryside, Australia
Posted:
When I said about the lawyer defending a pedophile I meant a convicted one. Sorry I should have made that more clear.
Written by: Sethis
But then in that case it's always "innocent until proven guilty" so there is a posibility (however small) that the accused Paedophile is innocent.
When I said about the lawyer defending a pedophile I meant a convicted one. Sorry I should have made that more clear.
.All things are beautiful if we take the time to look.
GOLD Member
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
4,437 posts
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
4,437 posts
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
Posted:
'Quiet' I think you misunderstood what i was saying I mean that if our country/ies are holding such moral values as to not humiliate Prisnoners of war and disband our own troops for doing such things then surely we cannot subject other POW's including Saddam to the same treatment, as i said then we will just be goign as low as what his regime did and go against all that we have fought for, does that make thing clearer or do you still think I am contradicting my signature?
'Quiet' I think you misunderstood what i was saying I mean that if our country/ies are holding such moral values as to not humiliate Prisnoners of war and disband our own troops for doing such things then surely we cannot subject other POW's including Saddam to the same treatment, as i said then we will just be goign as low as what his regime did and go against all that we have fought for, does that make thing clearer or do you still think I am contradicting my signature?
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind
Give a man a fish and he'll eat 4 a day hit a man with a brick and you can have all his fish and his wife
"Will's to pretty for prison" - Simian
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
PW: I agree with you up to a point, but there's a distinction between, say, gassing the Kurds, and photographing the perpetrator in his underwear.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the 100K Iraqi deaths since the start of the war. Now *that* is something to get worked up about.
PW: I agree with you up to a point, but there's a distinction between, say, gassing the Kurds, and photographing the perpetrator in his underwear.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the 100K Iraqi deaths since the start of the war. Now *that* is something to get worked up about.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Total Agreement with Quiet there.
What is even more disturbing is that no-one in the American or British governments is interested in obtaining an accurate body-count...
(Oh, and don't you just love it the way they report things like "20,000 more people now have access to TV" and I'm just like, "OK, but I bet they'd prefer to have clean water, food, and the absence of the daily threat of suicide bombers...")
Total Agreement with Quiet there.
What is even more disturbing is that no-one in the American or British governments is interested in obtaining an accurate body-count...
(Oh, and don't you just love it the way they report things like "20,000 more people now have access to TV" and I'm just like, "OK, but I bet they'd prefer to have clean water, food, and the absence of the daily threat of suicide bombers...")
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
Snoochie-boochie-noochies!
663 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Snoochie-boochie-noochies!
663 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Written by: Eddie Izzard: Dress to Kill
I think it's funny... because he's a mass murdering f**khead
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com